One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Ally]

I suppose you also failed to read the rules right there under Major Rules that said don't create sock puppets?

[Soothsayer]

I suppose you also failed to read the rules right there under Major Rules that said don't create sock puppets?

No, didn't know there was such a rule.

Two points:

1) I made no real attempt to hide it (positively announced the fact), and
2) I'm only posting from Soothsayer the Magnificent, so I'm hopefully not deluding anyone into thinking there might actually be two people in the world who still wholeheartedly believe the diary to be authentic.

I do still believe in the diary. The comments about the Three Facts from Fido were said with what I thought was no small dose of lighthearted irony.

[Ally]

Ignorance of the rules doesn't excuse violation of the rules. Whether you attempted to hide it or not is irrelevant. Why should you suck resources, space from the Casebook by having two user accounts just because you want to play infantile idiotic games?

[Billy Bulger]

FM initials

There was some support from the Inspector who in 1889 suggested keeping a 'watching brief' over another ghastly murder as (and this from recall), "The farthings found were similar to the Chapman case". Writers have claimed that he was on annual leave at the time of the Chapman murder and therefore had just bought into the folklore which had already built up around the first murder. Like so many aspects of the mystery, it (I believe) does remain a mystery.

Tom

Tom,
I think youre probably right: the farthings will continue to live on throughout the Ripper myth. In support of your case against (or for however you want to look at it lol) James Maybrick being the Ripper you can take comfort in the fact that several of the more sober authors on the Autumn of Terror have voiced their opinion that the farthings were indeed present when Chapman was found. I may be incorrect here but I believe Phillip Sugden through this issue back up into the air in The Complete Jack the Ripper.

To ALL,
Regarding the Florence Maybrick initials in Dorset Street, I have tried but cannot see them amidst the carnage left by the Ripper. Does anyone have a link that has the area in which the initials supposedly are highlighted? It would be really appreciated.

[Billy Bulger]

So whoever wrote the Diary had to have written it AFTER the Poste House was in existence which would not have been contemporary Victorian times. Which means it's a fake.

Ally,
I dont mean to play Devil's Advocate here but I myself have always found the diarist's use of the term 'Poste House' to be of little importance. I am not saying that I necessarily believe the dairy to be authentic but in this instance I agree with Feldman. Our diarist, if he is a forger, has gone to incredible lengths to fake authenticity in virtually every avenue that could prove his work false. Surely, having gone to such incredible lengths he would not have overlooked something like landmark dates. Of course it could just be a momentary lapse on his part but for me, when you take into account the obsessive detail poured into the diary, it strikes as unlikely that this diarist would make such a foolish error. I think the use of the term 'Poste House' refers to any poste house in the area.

[Ben]

Our diarist, if he is a forger, has gone to incredible lengths to fake authenticity in virtually every avenue that could prove his work false

No he didn't, Billy.

A clumsy anachronism of the order evinced by "The Poste House" is precisely what one would expect from a hoaxer who couldn't even be arsed to emulate the real Maybrick's writing style.

There weren't any other "Poste Houses" in the area.

[Billy Bulger]

Ah Ben c'mon, there are detailed references to domestic disputes with Florence at specific dates that coincide with instances that have been proven to have occurred. Again I must reiterate, I am not necessarily sugesting the diary is fact, I am merely arguing that the diarist has gone to great lengths to fake authenticity if that is what has actually taken place.
I feel the very fact that in spite of the countless detailed tests on both sides of the Atlantic done on the Maybrick Diary and the absence of a conclusive answer either for or against supports this argument.

To all,
Here's a thought: is it at least feasible to believe James Maybrick may well have written the diary but was merely playing the role of the Ripper in a private novellette? In other words, James Maybrick was partaking in a creative writing spell that involved writing as the Ripper in the first person.
Afterall, many people in the arts have written from the Ripper's perspective- most notably Patricia Cromwell's nemesis Walter Sickert during his Campden Town period.

[Ben]

Hi Billy,

Ah Ben c'mon, there are detailed references to domestic disputes with Florence at specific dates that coincide with instances that have been proven to have occurred.

There's nothing relating to domestic disputes that couldn't be readily accessed from books on the Maybrick case already in the public domain. I dispute that the hoaxer went to great lengths to fake authenticity. "Great lengths" would necessarily include a reasonable bash at emulating the real Maybrick's handwriting and/or that of the Dear Boss missive, but our hoaxer didn't go there.

Best regards,
Ben

[Omlor]

Billy,

Please explain how and why the real James Maybrick would be able to cite three consecutive times from an official document that was not generally available until the century after his death in such a scenario and how and why he would write the fake diary in a handwriting that in no way whatsoever even remotely resembles his own despite making it clear in the book exactly who he is supposed to be and how he would manage to give the precise and uniquely spelled and capitalized proper name of a pub that exists right there where the diary takes place and where it first appeared but was not there when the real James was alive and...

Well, you get the idea.

The thing is a cheap hoax. Every piece of available evidence confirms this and there is no evidence of any sort anywhere that links it in any way to the real James Maybrick.

It's a bad con and the sad thing is that it took in so many suckers early on and that even now when rational people have had the time to look at it carefully and see what a bad hoax it is, there are still some suckers on the vine.

Maybe someday, when the currently available technologies are finally put to use on the thing, this silly game can end. But there's no sign that this is likely to happen anytime soon. So trolls like Tom can continue to come here and lie about what they believe just to have a bit of fun with the locals. And new editions of the shameful and badly written and poorly thought-out fantasies of Harrison and Feldman can continue to ring the odd cash register now and then. But none of that changes the facts.

The thing is a cheap and worthless fake.

And there is still no evidence to the contrary.

--John

[Simon Wood]

Hi John,

I'll second that.

Regards,

Simon

[Ally]

Billy,

Nothing wrong with being the counsel for the devil, I do it myself frequently.

I also actually agree with you that the forger put effort into the forgery, and that they did do quite a lot of research in creating it. However, nothing in life is ever perfect, and as you say, lapses can and do occur. A simple mis-read, a transcription error and the house of cards comes down. As occurred with the Diary.

[Victor]

Ah Ben c'mon, there are detailed references to domestic disputes with Florence at specific dates that coincide with instances that have been proven to have occurred. Again I must reiterate, I am not necessarily sugesting the diary is fact, I am merely arguing that the diarist has gone to great lengths to fake authenticity if that is what has actually taken place.

Go on then Billy, show me where there's a date in the "diary" other than on the last page.

[Carol]

Hi Ben,

There is a Witt quotation which makes explicit reference to Maybrick doing his London business for him. Again, I'm doing this from memory. This is the gist of the quotation.

In retrospect (as I've already admitted), it didn't say Whitechapel, and it didn't give a date. Bang to rights, Your Honour.

The 'May' thing is just so much simpler than you're making it.

The 'Maybrick' in the diary refers to himself as 'May', tickled by the Punch cartoon.

Not particularly interesting in and of itself.

105 years later, the diary is published. Still the 'May' is not interesting.

At some point, the telegram (not letter) from Florie to Brierley crops up and it refers to Maybrick as 'May'.

The Punch cartoon inspires Maybrick to make play of a name which he may well have beem referred to in the household. The telegram adds a small amount of support for that possibility.

No more, no less.

Cheers,

Tom

I've been thinking about Maybrick's 'nicknames' - Sir James, for example. It used to be common practise in middle class homes, for the men of the family to be called Mr. John, Mr. Charles, Mr. William, etc., when being addressed by the servants. I used to work for a firm of solicitors back in the 60's and two of the partners (father and son) were called Mr. Clifford and Mr. Pat (Pat was actually the nickname of Brien (Irish spelling). Mr. Pat was my boss. So I can easily imagine that Mr. James could become Sir James to his immediate family as he was the senior partner in his own cotton business. As for 'May' being a nickname, I think this could also easily be the case as my father was called Sandy by the friends he had known for years (my maiden name was Sanders). One more thing before you all fall asleep at your computers, it's quite normal (if that's the word) to have more than one nickname. I have at various times in my life been known as Wiggy, Wiggles, Caz and Pickles.
With regards to the Diary itself I'm toying with the idea that Anne Graham actually wrote it herself and then arranged for Tony Devereux to give it to Michael so that he would be made a fool of eventually. I think that she probably really hated her husband by that time.
I'm really enjoying the humour on this site. Please feel free to be as 'honest' as you want to be with me!
Lots of love
Carol

[chastenor]

A Maybrick supporter

This discussion is rather too one-sided for my liking, so I have signed up to post this: I believe that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. I am not stupid, I am not demented. I have an MA from Oxford in Modern Languages, which suggests to me at least that I have some analytical skills. I just do not understand how people can read Paul Feldman's 'Jack the Ripper The Final Chapter' without coming away with a feeling that Maybrick MIGHT have been the Ripper, and I am impressed by all the coincidences which, whilst meaningless on their own, build up considerable weight. Maybrick's life is very well documented because of Florence's trial, yet he does not have an alibi for the nights in question. It seems to me much more likely that the writer of the diary was Jack the Ripper than that a forger could have been so lucky.

[Brenda]

This discussion is rather too one-sided for my liking, so I have signed up to post this: I believe that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. I am not stupid, I am not demented. I have an MA from Oxford in Modern Languages, which suggests to me at least that I have some analytical skills. I just do not understand how people can read Paul Feldman's 'Jack the Ripper The Final Chapter' without coming away with a feeling that Maybrick MIGHT have been the Ripper, and I am impressed by all the coincidences which, whilst meaningless on their own, build up considerable weight. Maybrick's life is very well documented because of Florence's trial, yet he does not have an alibi for the nights in question. It seems to me much more likely that the writer of the diary was Jack the Ripper than that a forger could have been so lucky.

Is that the only Ripper book you've read?